attach_file_to_issue

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the file path is resolved on the MCP server machine, and it explains the internal sequence of upload-then-link. However, it omits potential side effects, authorization requirements, or error conditions, so it doesn't reach a perfect score.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the primary action. The Args list is neat and easy to scan, and each explanation is concise. The note about Redmine's API is slightly extra but still useful context, making the description efficient without being wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has moderate complexity (upload + link) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The description covers all parameters and the critical server-path restriction. It doesn't mention prerequisites like file existence or permission checks, but for this operation the coverage is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning the description must compensate for the absence of parameter descriptions in the schema. It provides plain-language definitions for all five parameters, including the nuanced default behavior of file_name ('empty = use the file's own name'). This adds meaningful value beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Attach a local file to an issue', a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool attach_file_to_wiki_page. It also explains the two-step composition, making the tool's core function unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that it combines the two Redmine API steps into one call, implying a convenience benefit, but it does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as attach_file_to_wiki_page or mention when not to use this tool. The usage context is clear but without exclusions or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.